A per gallon tax is much better: accurately measures carbon emissions; collected at pump - needs no new administration/measurement; incentive to buy/maintain more efficient vehicles; can distribute tax-exempt coupons (say for 20 gallons/month) - higher in rural areas, also through existing mechanism (DMV).
What difference does it make whether a million people's pollution is concentrated in one city or spread over an entire state? The contribution to global climate change is the same.
The fact is, living in cities greatly reduces the pollution a given number of people cause! This is because they can walk, bike, or use public transportation to accomplish the same thing (go to work, get groceries, visit friends, etc.) that a rural or suburban person must drive to do. Many people who live in... more
Noelle,
What difference does it make whether a million people's pollution is concentrated in one city or spread over an entire state? The contribution to global climate change is the same.
The fact is, living in cities greatly reduces the pollution a given number of people cause! This is because they can walk, bike, or use public transportation to accomplish the same thing (go to work, get groceries, visit friends, etc.) that a rural or suburban person must drive to do. Many people who live in cities do not even own cars; think about how much less such a person contributes to pollution than one who drives 100 miles or more per week.
Beth, you have made some false statements in defense of your polluting ways.
- Vehicles made in the last few years require less than a minute to reach normal emissions levels, and do not require any "warm-up" before driving. These were very important improvements over previous cars.
- Does any environmental organization espouse the "limited spaces" philosophy you mention?
- There is only one atmosphere; a person driving a car and emitting CO2 in Montana hurts just as much as o... more
Beth, you have made some false statements in defense of your polluting ways.
- Vehicles made in the last few years require less than a minute to reach normal emissions levels, and do not require any "warm-up" before driving. These were very important improvements over previous cars.
- Does any environmental organization espouse the "limited spaces" philosophy you mention?
- There is only one atmosphere; a person driving a car and emitting CO2 in Montana hurts just as much as one driving in Los Angeles. You just can't see the effects.
I bike 100 miles a week in the northeast. Can you really claim you're just as clean even though you drive 100 miles a week (or more) somewhere else?
Here's what I'm thinking:
smog reduction can occur by having a reduced speed limit that goes into affect based on weather patterns, so that the smog doesn't build in one place. This is much easier to control in a city, where the pollution caused by car fumes occurs in a more congested area. So we can start there, and/or on highways.
The idea of taxing based on miles driven is not only idiotic; but totally discrimnatory. Many of us work great distances from where we live ( and to move closer to one work would add more miles on the other's commute) also, if you understand vehicles at all, you know that longer distances increase the efficiency of on board pollution controls -- that is why you need to drive your vehicle before you go in for emission testing. Living in the less populated areas as in the great plains states may also be ... more
The idea of taxing based on miles driven is not only idiotic; but totally discrimnatory. Many of us work great distances from where we live ( and to move closer to one work would add more miles on the other's commute) also, if you understand vehicles at all, you know that longer distances increase the efficiency of on board pollution controls -- that is why you need to drive your vehicle before you go in for emission testing. Living in the less populated areas as in the great plains states may also be the more environmentally sound as nature has a great capacity to heal itself, if not too severely impacted in any one place, yet most of us tend to congregate in the cities where we multiply our impacts. There are better ways to solve us environmental crises than taxing those who do not adhere the philosophy of high impacts in limited spaces.
The developed countries that emit less than the U.S. per capita - most western European countries, for example - do it by simply having higher fuel taxes, and using the proceeds to build sustainable energy generation.
Those crying that the distances are so great in the midwest and southwest that this disproportionately hurts those areas, should consider the fact that people in those areas are disproportionately hurting our country by disproportionately polluting it, as well as disprop... more
BWP is right.
The developed countries that emit less than the U.S. per capita - most western European countries, for example - do it by simply having higher fuel taxes, and using the proceeds to build sustainable energy generation.
Those crying that the distances are so great in the midwest and southwest that this disproportionately hurts those areas, should consider the fact that people in those areas are disproportionately hurting our country by disproportionately polluting it, as well as disproportionately forcing us to import foreign oil and defend the totalitarian regimes that control it, Canada being the only significant exception.
Instead of sticking with their obsolete 10 mpg pickup trucks, they could be forming a huge market demand for cheap 50 mpg hybrids.
"Waste not want not" is a fundamental American value, first stated by Benjamin Franklin. Wasting *anything* should proportionately hurt those who waste it, and benefit those who conserve it. Why should those who live in cities and commute by walking, biking, and public transportation subsidize those who live 50 miles from a town and drive a truck everywhere?
Great idea, but your example is stupid. Driving many miles doesn't do any harm--the fuel that you burn does the harm. A Honda Civic driving 100 miles does about the same environmental damage as a Hummer driving 30 miles (ignoring the fact that Hummers are about 6 times as likely to kill someone in a collision). Why not tax what actually matters--pollutants? Getting people to use less is as simple as making irresponsible behaviour more expensive.
Joe Chaikin
A per gallon tax is much better: accurately measures carbon emissions; collected at pump - needs no new administration/measurement; incentive to buy/maintain more efficient vehicles; can distribute tax-exempt coupons (say for 20 gallons/month) - higher in rural areas, also through existing mechanism (DMV).
g h
Noelle,
What difference does it make whether a million people's pollution is concentrated in one city or spread over an entire state? The contribution to global climate change is the same.
The fact is, living in cities greatly reduces the pollution a given number of people cause! This is because they can walk, bike, or use public transportation to accomplish the same thing (go to work, get groceries, visit friends, etc.) that a rural or suburban person must drive to do. Many people who live in... more
Noelle,
What difference does it make whether a million people's pollution is concentrated in one city or spread over an entire state? The contribution to global climate change is the same.
The fact is, living in cities greatly reduces the pollution a given number of people cause! This is because they can walk, bike, or use public transportation to accomplish the same thing (go to work, get groceries, visit friends, etc.) that a rural or suburban person must drive to do. Many people who live in cities do not even own cars; think about how much less such a person contributes to pollution than one who drives 100 miles or more per week.
g h
Beth, you have made some false statements in defense of your polluting ways.
- Vehicles made in the last few years require less than a minute to reach normal emissions levels, and do not require any "warm-up" before driving. These were very important improvements over previous cars.
- Does any environmental organization espouse the "limited spaces" philosophy you mention?
- There is only one atmosphere; a person driving a car and emitting CO2 in Montana hurts just as much as o... more
Beth, you have made some false statements in defense of your polluting ways.
- Vehicles made in the last few years require less than a minute to reach normal emissions levels, and do not require any "warm-up" before driving. These were very important improvements over previous cars.
- Does any environmental organization espouse the "limited spaces" philosophy you mention?
- There is only one atmosphere; a person driving a car and emitting CO2 in Montana hurts just as much as one driving in Los Angeles. You just can't see the effects.
I bike 100 miles a week in the northeast. Can you really claim you're just as clean even though you drive 100 miles a week (or more) somewhere else?
noelle
Here's what I'm thinking:
smog reduction can occur by having a reduced speed limit that goes into affect based on weather patterns, so that the smog doesn't build in one place. This is much easier to control in a city, where the pollution caused by car fumes occurs in a more congested area. So we can start there, and/or on highways.
Beth Nunley
The idea of taxing based on miles driven is not only idiotic; but totally discrimnatory. Many of us work great distances from where we live ( and to move closer to one work would add more miles on the other's commute) also, if you understand vehicles at all, you know that longer distances increase the efficiency of on board pollution controls -- that is why you need to drive your vehicle before you go in for emission testing. Living in the less populated areas as in the great plains states may also be ... more
The idea of taxing based on miles driven is not only idiotic; but totally discrimnatory. Many of us work great distances from where we live ( and to move closer to one work would add more miles on the other's commute) also, if you understand vehicles at all, you know that longer distances increase the efficiency of on board pollution controls -- that is why you need to drive your vehicle before you go in for emission testing. Living in the less populated areas as in the great plains states may also be the more environmentally sound as nature has a great capacity to heal itself, if not too severely impacted in any one place, yet most of us tend to congregate in the cities where we multiply our impacts. There are better ways to solve us environmental crises than taxing those who do not adhere the philosophy of high impacts in limited spaces.
g h
BWP is right.
The developed countries that emit less than the U.S. per capita - most western European countries, for example - do it by simply having higher fuel taxes, and using the proceeds to build sustainable energy generation.
Those crying that the distances are so great in the midwest and southwest that this disproportionately hurts those areas, should consider the fact that people in those areas are disproportionately hurting our country by disproportionately polluting it, as well as disprop... more
BWP is right.
The developed countries that emit less than the U.S. per capita - most western European countries, for example - do it by simply having higher fuel taxes, and using the proceeds to build sustainable energy generation.
Those crying that the distances are so great in the midwest and southwest that this disproportionately hurts those areas, should consider the fact that people in those areas are disproportionately hurting our country by disproportionately polluting it, as well as disproportionately forcing us to import foreign oil and defend the totalitarian regimes that control it, Canada being the only significant exception.
Instead of sticking with their obsolete 10 mpg pickup trucks, they could be forming a huge market demand for cheap 50 mpg hybrids.
"Waste not want not" is a fundamental American value, first stated by Benjamin Franklin. Wasting *anything* should proportionately hurt those who waste it, and benefit those who conserve it. Why should those who live in cities and commute by walking, biking, and public transportation subsidize those who live 50 miles from a town and drive a truck everywhere?
Benjamin Weste Pearre
Great idea, but your example is stupid. Driving many miles doesn't do any harm--the fuel that you burn does the harm. A Honda Civic driving 100 miles does about the same environmental damage as a Hummer driving 30 miles (ignoring the fact that Hummers are about 6 times as likely to kill someone in a collision). Why not tax what actually matters--pollutants? Getting people to use less is as simple as making irresponsible behaviour more expensive.